Prior to the great wave of rape reforms starting in the 1970s, rape advocates reported, with seemingly infinite invention, that women were too scared, too embarrassed, too certain of its futility to report their own rapes. The sexual grievance industry insisted that rape was underreported, and that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who suffered in silence the brutal indignity of rape. So we kowtowed to the sexual grievance industry to solve “the problem.”

First, we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of corroboration, which de facto served to flip the old law on its head: now,women don’t need any corroboration of their claims, but men and boys are arrested based solely on even the far-fetched say-so of any woman or girlif they can’t produce corroborating evidence of their innocence.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted rape shield laws that forbade almost any evidence of the accuser’s prior sexual history with persons other than the accused, a rule that resulted in innumerable innocent men and boys being sent to prison for alleged rapes that never occurred.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of force, and innocent men and boys who misunderstood the acquiescence of a woman were sent to prison.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that eliminated the mens rea requirement for rape. Historically, in a rape prosecution, the guilty defendant must have had the intention to have intercourse with a woman without her consent. Too stringent, said the sexual grievance industry, and the requirement was lightened or dropped altogether.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws (in the UK and a handful of US states) that legally forbade naming rape accusers. In the US, the news agencies and outlets have, by common consensus, agreed not to name rape accusers. The mere allegation of rape by the anonymous female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, invites a man’s name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio and Internet for the world to titillate at the details of his humiliation.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape, and now, men are sometimes accused of and charged with alleged rapes that occurred 20, 30, 40 or more years after they supposedly occurred, effectively foreclosing the accused from mounting a meaningful defense because the evidence of their innocence has long disappeared.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted VAWA which, among many other things, pays the legal bills of alleged victims of sexual assault. VAWA pays none of the legal bills of men accused of rape, the presumed innocent — even those who were falsely accused. In the UK, it’s worse. They compensate alleged rape victims, even the ones not subjected to any physical force, no matter how slight their injuries; the UK does not compensate men falsely accused of rape, no matter how egregious their harm. Sometimes false rape accusers are compensated.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that exempted rape accusers from taking polygraph tests as a condition to proceeding with the rape investigation. In contrast, using polygraphs on men accused of rape is routine, and often if men don’t submit to them, even flimsy charges won’t be dropped. (Moreover, polygraphs are routinely used to insure that sex offenders (predominantly male) are adhering to the terms of their probation, and a refusal to take the polygraph will land the person refusing in jail.)

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted Fed.R.Evid. 413 and many states adopted similar laws. Unlike any other criminal charge, including murder, assault, even planning the World Trade Center attacks, a rape trial in federal court and in various states allows evidence of the defendant’s commission of prior offenses (specifically, his prior offenses of sexual assault) to show that he has a propensity for committing the crime at issue. This rule, which is unique in all of American jurisprudence and widely condemned by legal scholars, allows the jury to hear about the defendant’s prior acts whether or not the defendant takes the stand. Even accusations of prior sexual offenses that occurred years before — and even crimes for which the defendant was acquitted — are admissible if the alleged act is proven by just a preponderance of the evidence (far lower than beyond a reasonable doubt). This is sometimes all a jury needs to convict the man or boy of the crime at issue.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted rules on college campuses making it easier and easier to expel males accused of sexual wrongdoing, with kangaroo courts and inquisitorial hearing processes. Many college campuses adopted rules that say rape accusers can’t be charged with underage drinking in connection with their accusation, thus providing yet one more motive to lie about rape for any young woman looking to evade an underage drinking charge.
But surely these massive reforms must have cut into underreporting of rape? Surely after decades of one reform after the next to encourage women to come forward, the women must be lining up, right?

Well, no, we are told. Nothing has ever worked to curb alleged underreporting, and underreporting is supposedly still rampant. As but one example, on college campuses, the supposed hotbed for modern rape, more than ninety five percent of students who are sexually assaulted supposedly remain silent, we are told. All the rape reforms, all the bending over backwards to get victims to “come forward” have been a waste of time. [ . . . ]

In one of the most despicable assertions ever uttered in the rape context, Chair of Women Against Rape Ruth Hall said the following: “There will be lots more rape victims” if the presumptively innocent accused of rape are afforded anonymity until they are charged.” Now alleged underreporting is being wielded in a last ditch effort to stop the plan for anonymity for the presumptively innocent. This plan, you must know, will not grant anonymity until conviction but only until a man is charged. It is, thus, the most modest reform imaginable to protect innocent men, scarcely a reform at all, if truth be told. But to the sexual grievance industry, any support for the presumptively innocent is too much support.

I showed in prior posts that many real problems, serious problems could be solved if they were attacked with the same vigor that feminists applied especially to “crimes” against females. These problems could be solved if attacked with the same vigor: bullyism, mafia intimidation, and the global health threat number one, child obesity. Feminsts are so concerned with the well being of our kids and are not concerned about millions of children condemned to an unhealty life of obesity, diabetes and premature death. See some of my suggestions how attitudes similar to the above measures could solve the deadly world health crisis of obesity from childhood into adulthood.

[…] decades in jail because only now the DNA test could prove their innocence. Normal constitutional due process rules are invalidated for legal court proceedings in rape accusations: "Guilty until proven […]

[…] about rape and are instantly believed. Furthermore, our legal system and constitutional rights to due process are not valid in rape and child abuse cases. Men accused of rape are guilty until proven […]

[…] about rape and are instantly believed. Furthermore, our legal system and constitutional rights to due process are not valid in rape and child abuse cases. Men accused of rape are guilty until proven […]

[…] are even worse for adolescents then for adults. Like in Marco’s case in Turkey, there always is the aggravating circumstance that potentially false accusations of abuse, sex, and rape (especially against males) are always believed. The accused is arrested, tried and convicted, under complete disregard of constitutional human rights of due legal process. […]

[…] repression, police power to ruthlessly roll back constitutional rights, the Magna Carta, due process. Feminism has changed the world into a medieval nightmare of laws stacked against men. A level […]

[…] repression, and police power to ruthlessly roll back constitutional rights, the Magna Carta, and due process. Feminism has changed the world into a medieval nightmare of laws stacked against men. A level […]

[…] stem the ever growing number of non-violent and even consensual types of rape, and to reinstitute due process and constitutional rights for the accused. Rape has ceased to be a special crime (see (1)), so we […]

[…] then rape. Even when reported, conviction rates are very low. So it is more then fair to remove due process rights for alleged false rape accusers to assure higher conviction rates, the same way […]

[…] are false. Like Strauss-Kahn, thousands of men are presumed guilty, jailed and smeared without due process. They can not afford to spend millions of dollars for bail, a dream team of lawyers, detectives, […]

[…] are false. Like Strauss-Kahn, thousands of men are presumed guilty, jailed, slandered, and denied due process. They can not afford to spend millions of dollars for bail, a dream team of lawyers, detectives, […]

[…] Socialist Hollande triumphs in French presidential poll, thanks to Nafissatou Diallo and feminist rape and harassment laws. Hollande had already declared he would run against Strauss-Kahn in the […]

[…] be the victim of false rape [15] charges, where he has to PROVE his innocence, without benefits of due process. Christian Grey’s contract is unenforceable, especially the clause that the woman is obliged […]